This is similar to resveritrol being found in red wine. Sure it's there, but to get to thereputic levels you'd have to drink so much wine you'd die. You'd have to smoke enough pot to turn you into a drooling toadstool before you got any theraputic effect from cannabidiol.

Weaver95:so cannabis is Schedule I and thus pure evil distilled into physical form. it has no valid uses, it'll rot reality itself...and it's going to destroy the universe if not locked down tight.

But at the exact same time, it's got a ton of valid medical uses, is amazingly harmless AND the US government wants to completely own it so as to make oodles of cash off its sale and use to everyone in the world.

do I have that right? is this the view of our government?

Meh. Heroin is schedule II, and yet we have OxyContin, Percocet, and even a "safe for hospital use" version of INJECTABLE HEROIN (like you'd find on the streets of Baltimore, only without the rat poison). The only difference here is that pot is Schedule I, so it looks a little crazier.

nmrsnr:iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::

I think you're missing it. This is noteworthy because the US govt's patent is exactly what you're saying they can't do. The patent title is "cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants". that's like patenting "drinking water will keep you hydrated", "consuming vitamin C prevents scurvy".

Also, this goes against the b.s. position that cannabis has no medicinal value.

odinsposse:detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

That isn't what he promised.

I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

While is is against federal law, has is also full of shiat when he says that he cannot tell the Justice Department what laws to enforce, what he means is that he is unwilling to spend the political capital to do so.

/Obama supported//He is full of shiat when it comes to his actions/words WRT medical marijuana

quantum_csc:odinsposse: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

That isn't what he promised.

I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

While is is against federal law, has is also full of shiat when he says that he cannot tell the Justice Department what laws to enforce, what he means is that he is unwilling to spend the political capital to do so.

/Obama supported//He is full of shiat when it comes to his actions/words WRT medical marijuana

You're cherry picking. Here's what he said in the article:

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana -- and the reason is, because it's against federal law."

It's the "against federal law" part that he's using as the rationale for going after the commercial grower.

Personally, I think he's going after the big fish. I think if you're a small player, keep quiet, don't make waves, the feds wouldn't go after you. Or they might.

nmrsnr:iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::

Cool. Now I know how to word my applications. Treat thirst with liquid and Hunger with food. I promise not to charge TOO much in royalty fees.

AeAe:quantum_csc: odinsposse: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

That isn't what he promised.

I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

While is is against federal law, has is also full of shiat when he says that he cannot tell the Justice Department what laws to enforce, what he means is that he is unwilling to spend the political capital to do so.

/Obama supported//He is full of shiat when it comes to his actions/words WRT medical marijuana

You're cherry picking. Here's what he said in the article:

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana -- and the reason is, because it's against federal law."

It's the "against federal law" part that he's using as the rationale for going after the commercial grower.

Personally, I think he's going after the big fish. I think if you're a small player, keep quiet, don't make waves, the feds wouldn't go after you. Or they might.

There are some NorCal medical growers on another forum I follow - the smart ones keep their heads down and don't get too big.

xanadian:FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

I never expected a Dr. to reccomend medicinal maryjane to me. That is exactly what happened to me about three months ago. I never even approached the subject, but that is what happened. Unfortunately I live in a state that does not offer a legal dispensary. So I tried the current pharmaceutical option: Marinol. It sucks.

actualhuman:And the Right does not give a fark about the 9th Amendment.

And they only care about the 10th when they can use it to legislate bigotry and restrictive laws. "Abortions? Leave it up to the states!" "Racial discrimination? STATES RIGHTS." "Regulations on interstate commerce pertaining to the sale and purchase of health insurance? Oh, you better believe that States rights applies."

spentshells:xanadian: FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

/also also: the patent has "cannabidiol" mis-spelled.

Two different things no?

Really good point. Isn't "cannabinoid" the general term for all active constituents in cannabis? Both cannabidiol and THC are cannabinoids.

AeAe:Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.

I read that Rhode Island and Maine state legislatures are drafting a law to legalize as well. I thought that was interdasting.

In Maine it's the same bill Diane Russell has been pushing since last term. She also ran for Speaker of the House and if you want to use it as a straw-poll on this bill (she's fairly progressive across the board but cannabis is what she's gotten the most press for) it doesn't look good. However it was also a four way speaker race so anything is possible.

Here's a shiatty article from the Portland Sun that only quotes pot activists: http://www.portlanddailysun.me/index.php/newsx/local-news/8111-russell -back-with-pot-legalization-bill

quantum_csc:I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

I think you heard what you wanted to hear in that line. Obama didn't say he wasn't going to prosecute medical marijuana users. He didn't say he was leaving drug prosecutions up to the states. He said, basically, that he wasn't going to make states use resources to do it since it was legal according to state law. He probably knew even then that he couldn't ignore such large and open violations of federal law.

actualhuman:AeAe: Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.

I read that Rhode Island and Maine state legislatures are drafting a law to legalize as well. I thought that was interdasting.

In Maine it's the same bill Diane Russell has been pushing since last term. She also ran for Speaker of the House and if you want to use it as a straw-poll on this bill (she's fairly progressive across the board but cannabis is what she's gotten the most press for) it doesn't look good. However it was also a four way speaker race so anything is possible.

Here's a shiatty article from the Portland Sun that only quotes pot activists: http://www.portlanddailysun.me/index.php/newsx/local-news/8111-russell -back-with-pot-legalization-bill

iron_city_ap:nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::

Cool. Now I know how to word my applications. Treat thirst with liquid and Hunger with food. I promise not to charge TOO much in royalty fees.

Closer, though you still have prior art issues. Now, if you wanted to claim a method of treating dehydration comprising intravenously injecting a saline solution, and you were the first one to do it, then yes, I say you can patent treating thirst by giving someone water.

AeAe: the title doesn't matter at all. It could be titled "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" but if the claims were about cancer treatments it could still get a patent.

odinsposse:quantum_csc: I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

I think you heard what you wanted to hear in that line. Obama didn't say he wasn't going to prosecute medical marijuana users. He didn't say he was leaving drug prosecutions up to the states. He said, basically, that he wasn't going to make states use resources to do it since it was legal according to state law. He probably knew even then that he couldn't ignore such large and open violations of federal law.

Pretty much, then the part that HuffPo calls "shifting away from marijuana" is him using weasel words to say he's okay with other people talking about it but won't be using any political capital himself.

Rindred:Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.

If you're referring to Arkansas in that last sentence, did you look at how close the vote tally was? And that it was the first attempt to get it passed?

OK, and? Does that mean it didn't pass? What does that mean for the 47% (IIRC) that voted against CO's new law? My point is that "libs" appear to be on the same side as the civil libertarians on this one, contrary to b_p's implication, while the more conservative among us (or "among our states") could take a lesson.

That wasn't a suggestion that 100% of libs are pot-smoking awesomeness and conservatives are 100% authoritarian - that's a silly statement.

AeAe:I read that Rhode Island and Maine state legislatures are drafting a law to legalize as well. I thought that was interdasting.

Also, it looks like Congress is going to (try to) specifically exempt states with their own legalization bills from the Controlled Substances Act. With the GOP's focus on "the will of the people" it becomes very hard for them to say the results of a ballot referendum aren't valid (though there is precedent).

nmrsnr:iron_city_ap: nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::

Cool. Now I know how to word my applications. Treat thirst with liquid and Hunger with food. I promise not to charge TOO much in royalty fees.

Closer, though you still have prior art issues. Now, if you wanted to claim a method of treating dehydration comprising intravenously injecting a saline solution, and you were the first one to do it, then yes, I say you can patent treating thirst by giving someone water.

AeAe: the title doesn't matter at all. It could be titled "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" but if the claims were about cancer treatments it could still get a patent.

Did you read the abstract? The title of the patent is pretty descriptive of the abstract. I'm no patent guy, but it seems to me the patent is essentially that cannabinoids have all these medicinal properties ...

Amos Quito:Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.

Doesn't excuse Obama's action/inaction.

Are you following me around baiting me in fark threads? I count 3 times in the last 2 days you've tried to get a rise out of me. Still not gonna happen.

But to respond - no one mentioned Obama's DoJ or personal position. I brought it up because I meant to include a statistical takedown, showing that half of us voted Obama and half (or an even 45-45% split with 10% undecided) of Americans think legalization is a good idea. That suggests a much muddier split than libs/cons, though I included some other counter-examples to help him see.

// Obama is wrong on this one// and yet I voted for him anyway, almost as though his platform was the closest legitimate one that matched my own philosophy

AeAe:xanadian: FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

/also also: the patent has "cannabidiol" mis-spelled.

You may not know the answer, but what about Marinol? .. which I believe is synthetic THC and is Schedule III ..

THC is not the ony active ingrediant in marijuana. Many people find Marinol to be either ineffective or less efective than the combination of cannibinoids that naturally occure in the plant. This is especially true for some people on chemotherapy who need marijuanna to keep food down.

There is no reason to keep marijuana on Schedule 1. The FDA and AMA have had over a hundred years to do studies, but those in power claim that they need to do more studies to determine that there are no unknown side effects before allowing medical use. There are drugs that are known to be addictive, abused, and that have horrible side effeects that are allowed all the time, and they have been studied less than marinjuanna. There is no good medical reason for the FDA's stance on this issue.

AeAe:nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::

Cool. Now I know how to word my applications. Treat thirst with liquid and Hunger with food. I promise not to charge TOO much in royalty fees.

Closer, though you still have prior art issues. Now, if you wanted to claim a method of treating dehydration comprising intravenously injecting a saline solution, and you were the first one to do it, then yes, I say you can patent treating thirst by giving someone water.

AeAe: the title doesn't matter at all. It could be titled "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" but if the claims were about cancer treatments it could still get a patent.

Did you read the abstract? The title of the patent is pretty descriptive of the abstract. I'm no patent guy, but it seems to me the patent is essentially that cannabinoids have all these medicinal properties ...

::sigh::

the title can be "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" and the abstract can read "You know? Breathing? That thing you do with your lungs to keep alive? Yeah, I'm totally patenting that." But if the CLAIMS are about a novel cancer treatment it'll still get a patent.

MFAWG:detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?